If I needed it, I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot. Certainly medical technology is failable (I know someone that had a replaced hip recalled), but enough of it works quite well to make the odds worth it in my mind.
Yes, why not? I think such a artificial pancreas is not more dangerous than a cardiac pacemaker. And medical devices have to guarantee various safety standards like IEC 61508. But I can not imagine to wear such a device at bedtime or during sporting activities like jogging.
That's a very good question Rick. I find it interesting that the phones won't need FDA certificiation. I understand there are a lot of gripes about the FDA certification process, but this may be a good illustration of why that process is in place. It's one thing to be annoyed about dropped calls or your phone freezing up, but if your health depends on it working properly, seems like there could be quite a reliability gap between different models.
I am a Type 1 and took 4-5 shots per day for 20 years, til I got on a pump 10 years ago. Now my glucose meter is linked via Bluetooth to the pump and it has been very reliable, using it 24/7. I often thought about the security though and having someone be able to adjust my pump/insulin without my knowledge. The algorithm for proper insulin injection has to be akin to navigating the Voyager 1 at the edge of the solar system.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.